Travis R. McDonough
How Judge McDonough rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McDonough
Travis Randall McDonough is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McDonough received a commission on December 10, 2015.
Judge McDonough's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McDonough, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Judge McDonough considers statements of undisputed facts only when jointly submitted.
“The Court does not require statements of undisputed facts and will not consider them unless they are jointly submitted.”
Motions
Confer and prepare one joint exhibit appendix before filing a summary judgment motion.
“Prior to a motion for summary judgment, the parties shall meet, confer, and develop a single, joint appendix of all exhibits.”
Motions
Move to exceed a brief page limit at least ten days before the due date when the schedule allows.
“A motion to exceed the page limitation should be made, if allowed by the briefing schedule, at least ten days before the brief is due for filing.”
Discovery
Filing a dispositive motion does not stay discovery unless the court orders otherwise.
“Absent an order to the contrary, the filing of a dispositive motion does not stay discovery.”
Discovery
Counsel may file a discovery motion without first seeking leave from a magistrate judge.
“The Court does not require counsel to contact a magistrate judge to obtain leave to file discovery motions.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge McDonough decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Telecommunications Act claim, the judge distinguished evidence that a new facility would merely improve or 'densify' an already-adequate network from evidence of an actual existing coverage gap, and declined to import a broader FCC standard that the Sixth Circuit has not adopted.
“The Court will not adopt this standard. Sixth Circuit precedent outlines the test for evaluating an effective prohibition under the TCA.”
In assessing a retaliation-adjacent tortious-interference claim, the judge focused on whether the loss complained of was itself the retaliatory act or merely an incidental consequence of it.
“Plaintiff's loss of his TRICOR job was incidental to the alleged retaliatory act.”
Procedural preferences
Before dismissing a pro se prisoner case for failure to prosecute, the judge worked through all four Sixth Circuit Wu/Knoll factors (willfulness, prejudice to the defendant, prior warning, and consideration of lesser sanctions) rather than resting on the procedural default alone.
“The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): (1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.”
In an insurance coverage dispute, the court found a duty to defend but declined to decide indemnity on summary judgment because the facts of the underlying suit had not yet been established.
“At this stage of this declaratory-judgment action, the true facts of the Doe Action are not available, and the Court cannot determine whether Cincinnati Insurance has a duty to indemnify First Centenary.”
Cautions
In Benford’s civil-rights action, he dismissed the unsigned complaint after the plaintiff missed a warned deadline to submit a signed page, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
“Plaintiff’s pro se status did not prevent him from complying with the Court’s order, and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Erlanger's motion (Doc. 117).”
“Plaintiff has not presented a basis for relief under Rule 54(b), and accordingly, the instant motion (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, this motion (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's initial motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's initial motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot.”
A pro se prisoner's Section 1983 complaint was screened and dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not file a timely amended complaint despite an explicit warning that his case would otherwise be dismissed. This was a sua sponte screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“the City's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED, and Vogue's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 16) is GRANTED”
“The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) will be GRANTED; Plaintiff's claim will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the Clerk will be DIRECTED to close the case.”
“Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 56 in Case No. 1:17-cr-109; Doc. 1 in Case No. 1:22-cv-217) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs, who are self-represented, cannot adequately represent a proposed class as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Doc. 7).”
“Nothing in the filings before the Court indicate any of the individual Plaintiffs are incapable of adequately representing themselves. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 8).”
“Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his complaint (Doc. 70) is GRANTED. This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).”
“Defendant Thomas's request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Hamilton County's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57) is GRANTED”
“As such, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The thirteen examined 2021-filed matters include insurance, employment, civil-rights, prisoner, post-conviction, and contract cases. The original four-case sample was settlement-heavy; three of the nine added terminated cases supplied signed and dated motion rulings. This selected set does not represent the judge’s full docket.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 10 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 34 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 24 | 5 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, not for Judge McDonough: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 139 | 7.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 724 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 59 | 20.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 11 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 845 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 762 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 921 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 949 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 803 | 10 months |
| Sep 2019 | 859 | 12.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge McDonough with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McDonough, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McDonough's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace